Planning delays decision on Downs apartments

Ridgecrest Planning Commission quietly swept a continued hearing on the second phase of a Downs Street apartment development to a June 25 during its Tuesday meeting at City Hall.City Planner Matthew Alexander said the developer, AMG Ridgecrest Pacific, wished to delay the process until a future date.

Comment

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Ridgecrest Daily Independent - Ridgecrest, CA

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Apr. 24, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Updated Apr 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Apr 24, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Updated Apr 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Ridgecrest Planning Commission quietly swept a continued hearing on the second phase of a Downs Street apartment development to a June 25 during its Tuesday meeting at City Hall.

City Planner Matthew Alexander said the developer, AMG Ridgecrest Pacific, wished to delay the process until a future date.

The existing first phase, a senior apartment complex at Downs and Church Avenue, is currently one component of pending litigation between the City of Ridgecrest and the State of California.

The first phase was funded with a $3 million loan from the former redevelopment agency, and the state is disputing that it was not a valid enforceable obligation.

One of the underlying items that the developer wished to amend for the second phase at the March 26 planning meeting was a change in its initial Owner Participation Agreement to switch from a market-rate apartment to a second set of senior apartments.

However, while the public hearing was delayed, the commission heard a staff report regarding concerns expressed at the March 26 meeting regarding alleged sub-par construction issues.

Alexander reported that the developer responded to a letter by one of the apartment residents, Judy Bailey, and addressed three of the nine concerns.

The major concern Bailey and her husband Dale had was over the plumbing and the lack of quality insulation, in addition to the pool still being closed and community center consistently closed more than open.

Other concerns were:

• Uneven walkways on the upstair apartments that might cause walkers to catch and causes puddles to form after it rains.

• Insufficient storage areas for toiletries and other amenities

• Poor lighting in the bedroom and poorly sealed windows

However, the developer's contact person, Cameron Johnson, in the email response to the apartment's management company, Nathan Bergum of Buckingham Property, said that Bailey was more concerned than angered.

“The Mayor and city are very supportive of our proposed phase II project but they just want to make sure that we are addressing the tenants concerns since they were expressed at a public hearing,” Johnson told Bergum in the email.

Bergum's response was that the pool was still closed pending construction issues and that staff was looking into the issue surrounding the office and amenities not being open, but reassured that the management would address it.

Alexander, the city planner, said he had received an email from AMG partially addressing the concerns.

“The staff did not feel it was a very adequate response,” Alexander said. “I went to the Steve Morgan School of Public Relations approach when I wrote the response email.”

The return email Alexander received Tuesday afternoon from Johnson stated that the property management would address each of the nine issues and would keep the city with an update.

Page 2 of 2 - Commission Vice Chair Steve Morgan said there were some concerns he would bring up at the June 25 meeting, especially in regard to the city's support.

“Is it not that I am not unopposed to this project, but I do not want them to have a false sense of security that they are going to walk through this change in what they had proposed initially,” Morgan said. “I do understand all the benefits to what they are proposing but I want some explanations.”

Morgan also requested some verification of the proposed corrections prior to the June 25 meeting.

“It appears that progress is being made but I want to ensure that if we approve changes, those changes are of a quality nature and not something that we are going to come back and listen to later,” Obergfell said.

Building site plan approval

The commission also held a public hearing over whether to allow a Ridgecrest resident to move forward with a site plan review for the construction of a 4,800 square foot metal building on a parcel of land located at Gateway Boulevard near Bowman Road.

The applicant, David Tharp, asked the commission for some alterations required for the area's zoning, conditioned Commercial General, asking for one street parking space per 500 feet (or 10 parking spaces) as compared to one space per 300 square feet.

According to Alexander during his staff report to the commission, the only requirements for approval would be those imposed in the ordinance.

Those requirements include standard storm water runoff containment, sewer improvements and other requirements required by the city engineer and the Ridgecrest Building Department.

Alexander noted that the metal building was a on major roadway and would be required to have some landscape.

“There is a requirement that we break up the exterior major buildings along major streets,” Alexander said. “Mr. Tharp has agreed to do some landscaping along the building exterior.”

Commissioner Obergfell requested clarification if Tharp utilized the building for commercial storage at a future date.

Alexander responded that an increase in demand for parking would be expected and would be addressed appropriately.

The commission approved the site plan 5-0, allowing Tharp to proceed with his plans.